[This is part of the text of an article I wrote for St. Francis Magazine which can be found HERE. Part I can be found HERE.--AD]
[...]Take a look at the pillars of Islam. While Muslims do not use the language of sacrament, they certainly have the concept, though in an incomplete manner. (For ultimately the fullness of the sacramentality of Creation cannot be grasped without the incarnation). Because the sacramental principle is distorted but present in Islam, one ends up with the rather crude and instrumentalist language regarding forgiveness of sins: that if one does this or that then certain sins will be forgiven. Forgiveness in Islam is not the reconciliation of mercy and justice as it is in Christianity: it tends more towards a sort of randomness and, some might say, capriciousness on the part of Allah. The two are related of course. Because there is no reconciliation of justice and mercy in a body—a human body which is “sacrificed for us” and “takes away the sins of the world”—there can be nothing higher than capriciousness which oscillates between mercy and justice without really dealing with either of them in a concrete way.
Nevertheless Islam is filled with rituals and there can be no doubt that through these concrete rituals—and much attention is given to form—mercy and forgives can be earned, though one is seldom assured that they have been imparted. To bring a person from Islam into Christianity is to bring them from one set of signs and symbols into another. This is true even if we are using the phraseology of the Kingdom of God and Islamic vocabulary. Islam already has a ritual washing which is performed by devout Muslims quite frequently. Baptism is an alternate ritual washing, performed once.
The community of the Kingdom of God has a ritual meal which is celebrated on a regular basis by those who have made the required confession of faith (in baptism). It is not a sacrifice of a living animal, as is the Islamic ritual sacrifice-meal (Eid al Adha); also, it is performed more often (in Acts daily, and until the 16th C. weekly). The Islamic sacrificial meal is a memorial of a grand sacrifice provided by Allah whereby Abraham’s son was spared: it and the meal celebrate and recall filial obedience. The ritual sacrifice-meal among the subjects of the Kingdom is similar, but not identical. For one, it is always a participation, a going-back-to and a reliving of one sacrifice that was made at a specific point in time (under Pontius Pilate) in a specific way (he was crucified, dead, and buried) on a given hill near Zion. There too is a theme of filial obedience. In the Quran the son of Abraham knows ahead of time that his father will kill him, unlike in the Genesis narrative. Yet he goes with him to meet this fate. In a more dramatic and lengthier narrative we have a similar story in the Gospels. But the ultimate end of the sacrifice is not only obedience for the sake of obedience, but obedience for the sake of reconciling all Creation to God. Another way to put it is this: to preserve the justice and mercy of God through the sacrament of Jesus’ body. [...]
Abu Daoud. 'Mission and Sacrament, Part II' in Saint Francis Magazine 4:3, Dec. 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Part XIX: Islam is a Civilization
Part XIX: Islam is a Civilization, not a religion
by Abu Daoud
The word religion is spectacularly Western. It comes from the Latin meaning “to re-connect” or to form a link that has been severed. It is popular in the USA, and perhaps in the UK, to say that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship. Neither is entirely correct though: Christianity is indeed a religion, but it is relational as well. Christianity does indeed seek to re-connect (or reconcile, to use a more biblical word) two warring parties: God and man. And it does this through the cross of the God-man, Jesus Christ, God incarnate.
But what of Islam? Is it a religion? Does it seek to reconnect two estranged parties?
The word normally used in Arabic to translate the English-Latin word religion is “diin.” But if we look at that word we find a very different understanding of the relation between humanity and God/Allah than we would via the other word, religion.
The Arabic word diin is a gerund, and it is based on the verb daan, which means, in its root form, (he) judged. In fact we find this confirmed in no less a prayer than the opening chapter of the Quran (al fatiha—the opening), wherein we read that “your is the day of diin” or “yours is the day of judgment.” So in Arabic Islam (which, make no mistake, is the true Islam) diin is nothing less than judgment.
This moves us towards the true understand that the English word ‘religion’ quite simply has no translation in Arabic. If wish to translate the word ‘reconciliation’ we may use the fairly accurate word tasalluh, which does indeed mean to reconcile two inimical parties. But for the word ‘religion’ we would have to resort to fairly exotic contrivances like ‘ta3alluq’ or something along those lines.
I mention this all simply because I have noticed the very pernicious effect of mistranslations. Words have a great deal of power. I bring up the topic because one hears often among Western politicians the idea of “secularism” among Arab or Persian Muslim peoples, wherein one separates religion from civil rule. When we understand that the truly Islamic-Arabic understanding does not, and can not, separate religious rule from civil rule, we have moved a step towards being able to intelligently grapple in a realistic way with the sundry challenges faced by people in the diverse countries of Southwest Asia and North Africa. Religion involves judgment (diin). Civil rule involves judgment (diin) as well. There is no separation, and within an Islamic civilization separation of the two is neither desirable nor possible.
by Abu Daoud
The word religion is spectacularly Western. It comes from the Latin meaning “to re-connect” or to form a link that has been severed. It is popular in the USA, and perhaps in the UK, to say that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship. Neither is entirely correct though: Christianity is indeed a religion, but it is relational as well. Christianity does indeed seek to re-connect (or reconcile, to use a more biblical word) two warring parties: God and man. And it does this through the cross of the God-man, Jesus Christ, God incarnate.
But what of Islam? Is it a religion? Does it seek to reconnect two estranged parties?
The word normally used in Arabic to translate the English-Latin word religion is “diin.” But if we look at that word we find a very different understanding of the relation between humanity and God/Allah than we would via the other word, religion.
The Arabic word diin is a gerund, and it is based on the verb daan, which means, in its root form, (he) judged. In fact we find this confirmed in no less a prayer than the opening chapter of the Quran (al fatiha—the opening), wherein we read that “your is the day of diin” or “yours is the day of judgment.” So in Arabic Islam (which, make no mistake, is the true Islam) diin is nothing less than judgment.
This moves us towards the true understand that the English word ‘religion’ quite simply has no translation in Arabic. If wish to translate the word ‘reconciliation’ we may use the fairly accurate word tasalluh, which does indeed mean to reconcile two inimical parties. But for the word ‘religion’ we would have to resort to fairly exotic contrivances like ‘ta3alluq’ or something along those lines.
I mention this all simply because I have noticed the very pernicious effect of mistranslations. Words have a great deal of power. I bring up the topic because one hears often among Western politicians the idea of “secularism” among Arab or Persian Muslim peoples, wherein one separates religion from civil rule. When we understand that the truly Islamic-Arabic understanding does not, and can not, separate religious rule from civil rule, we have moved a step towards being able to intelligently grapple in a realistic way with the sundry challenges faced by people in the diverse countries of Southwest Asia and North Africa. Religion involves judgment (diin). Civil rule involves judgment (diin) as well. There is no separation, and within an Islamic civilization separation of the two is neither desirable nor possible.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Bibliography for Islam and Christianity
Broadly speaking, of course, here is a bibliography I have been working on (and am working on) for some time. It is not narrowly tailored, so it has some works on completely Christian issues (sacramental and trinitarian theology) which, in my view, are important for understanding how Christianity relates to Islam and can answer Islam. And vice versa, so there are works on the Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) which do not at any length discuss Christian themes or ideas, but are nonetheless essential in grasping the otherness of Christianity when approached from the Islamic framework.
Bibliography for Islam and Christianity
by Abu Daoud
Abd al-Masiih. ‘ALLAH? The God of Islam and the God of Christianity?’ in St Francis Magazine Vol 2:4, March 2007.
Arab World Ministeries (AWM) ‘Contextualization of Ministry among Muslims: A Statement on the Appropriate Limits’ in St Francis Magazine Vol 3:1, June 2007.
Armstrong, Karen. 2002. Islam: A Short History. Modern Library Chronicles.
Arthur, J. Bryson. 2001. The Real Church: The GodMan Legacy. Nairobi: Uzima Press.
Bailey, Betty Jane; J. Martin Bailey. 2003. Who are the Christians in the Middle East? Grand Rapids; Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans.
Bettenson, Henry, ed. 1967. Documents of the Christian Church, Second Edition. London, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Caner, Emir Fethi and H. Edward Pruitt. 2006. The Costly Call, Book 2. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel.
Chauvet, Louis-Marie. 1995. Symbol and Sacrament: A Sacramental Reinterpretation of Christian Existence. Translated by Patrick Madigan, Madelaine Beaumont. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press.
Chesterton, G. K. 1920. The New Jerusalem. Pub UNK.
Coote, Robert T. ‘Finger on the Pulse: Fifty Years of Missionary Research’ in IBMR, Vol. 24:3.
Cragg, Kenneth. 1991. The Arab Christian: A History in the Middle East. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press.
_____. 2000. The Call of the Minaret, Third Edition. Oxford: One World Press.
Crombie, Kelvin. 2006. A Jewish Bishop in Jerusalem: The life story of Michael Solomon Alexander. Jerusalem: Nicolayson’s Ltd.
Dalrymple, William. 1998. From the Holy Mountain: A Journey among the Christians of the Middle East. London: Flamingo.
Donaldson, Stuart A. 1909. Church Life and Thought in North Africa A.D. 200. Cambridge: University Press.
Dutch, Bernard. ‘Should Muslims become “Christians”?’ in IJFM, Vol. 17:1, Spring 2000.
Evans, Edward. ‘Discipling and Training for Muslim background Believers, Part 1: A Growing Need’ in St Francis Magazine Vol 3:2 , Sep 2007.
Farah, Rafiq A. 2002. In Troubled Waters: A History of the Anglican Church in Jerusalem 1841-1998. Leicester, UK: Christians Aware.
Farah, Warrick. 2005. Mapping People Groups in Yemen for Informed Church Planting: A Research Project. Unpublished Manuscript.
Foster, John. 1956. Beginning From Jerusalem: Christian Expansion through Seventeen Centuries. London: United Society for Christian Literature.
Francisco, Adam S. ‘Luther, Lutheranism, and the Challenge of Islam’ in Concordia Theological Quarterly, Vol. 71:3/4, July/Oct 2007.
Fromkin, David. 1989. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. New York: Henry Holt & Co.
Garrison, David. ND. Church Planting Movements. Richmond, Virginia: International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.
_____. 1990. The Nonresidential Missionary: A new strategy and the people it serves. Birmingham, Alabama: MARC & New Hope.
Goldsmith, Martin. ‘Immanuel—Imanu-Allah: The Name of the Creator Deity and the Name of God’ in St Francis Magazine Vol 3:3, Dec 2007.
Gray, John. 2003. Al Qaeda and what it means to be modern. Chatham, UK: Faber and Faber.
Gunton, Colin E. 1997. The Promise of Trinitarian Theology. London, New York: T&T Clark.
Gustafson, K. and Common Ground Consultants, Inc. 2007. An Insider View. Unk: Common Ground Consultants, Inc.
Hallaq, Wael B. 1997. A History of Islamic Legal Theories: An introduction to Sunni usul al-fiqh. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Harper, Susan Billington. ‘Ironies of Indigenization’ in IBMR Vol. 19:1,
Hart, David Bentley. 2004. The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth. Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans.
Hogg, W. Richey. ‘Vatican II’s Ad Gentes: A Twenty-Year Retrospective’ in IBMR Vol. 9:4, Oct 1985.
Horner, Norman A. ‘Christianity in North Africa Today’ in Occassional Bulletin of Missionary Research Vol 4:2, Apr 1980.
Huband, Mark. 1999. Warriors of the Prophet: The Struggle for Islam. Oxford: Westview Press.
Huntington, Samuel P. 1998. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon & Schuster.
Jameson, Richard and Nick Scalevish. ‘First-Century Jews and Twentieth-Century Muslims’ in IJFM, Vol. 17:1, Spring 2000.
Jenkins, Philip. 2002. The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenner, Henry. ‘Mozarabic Rite’ in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X. 1911. Censor Lafort, Remy. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
John Paul II. 1990. Redemptoris Missio: On the Permanent Validity of the Church’s Missionary Mandate. Hunter Publishing.
Karsh, Efraim. 2006. Islamic Imperialism: A History. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
Kerr, David A. ‘Christian Mission and Islamic Studies: Beyond Antithesis’ in IBMR, Vol. 26:1, Jan 2002.
Khalil, Mohammad Hassan and Mucahit Bilici. ‘Conversion out of Islam: A Study of Conversion Narratives of Former Muslims’ in The Muslim World, Vol. 97, Jan. 2007.
Klauser, Theodor. 1979. A Short History of the Western Liturgy: An account and some reflections, 2nd Edition. Trans. by John Halliburton. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Lahham, Maroun. ‘Eastern Christianity: Development across the two millennia’ Translator unknown, in St Francis Magazine Vol 2:4, March 2007.
Lewis, Bernard. 2003. The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror. New York: Modern Library.
Lewis, Christopher. ‘It’s Primetime in Iran’ in Christianity Today, Sep. 2008.
_____. ‘Looking for Home’ in Christianity Today, Sep. 2008.
Livingstone, Greg. 1993. Planting Churches in Muslim Cities: A Team Approach. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.
Mansour, Atallah. 2004. Narrow Gate Churches: The Christian Presence in the Holy Land under Muslim and Jewish Rule. Pasadena: Hope Publishing.
Masri, Fouad. 2006. Is the Injeel Corrrupted? My Search for the Truth about the New Testament. Indianapolis: Crescent Project.
Massey, Joshua. ‘God’s Amazing Diversity in Drawing Muslims to Christ’ in IJFM, Vol. 17:1, Spring 2000.
Metz, Johann B. 1993. ‘The “One World”: A Challenge to Western Christianity’ in Christ and Context: The Confrontation between Gospel and Culture ed. by Regan, Hilary D. and Alan J. Torance. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Miller, William McElwee. 1969. Ten Muslims Meet Christ. Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans.
Newbigin, Lesslie. 2003. Signs amid the Rubble: The Purposes of God in Human History. Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans.
_____. 1995. The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission. Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans.
Nikides, Bill. ‘Evaluating “Insider Movements”: C5 (Messianic Muslims)’ in St Francis Magazine Vol 1:4, March 2006.
_____. ‘The Church at the Crossroads: A Global Perspective’ in St Francis Magazine Vol II:4, March 2007.
Pardo Pastor, Jordi. ‘Ramon Lull y el Ars Conuertendi: Antropología, Apologética, Diálogo y Hermenéutica’ in Estudios Eclesiásticos, Vol. 80, No. 312, 2005.
Paul VI. 1976. Evangelii Nuntiandi: On Evangelization in the Modern World. Pauline Books & Media.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. 1978. The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300). Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
Peters, Barry. ‘Christological Monotheism—a Practical Methodology’ in St Francis Magazine Vol 3:3, Dec 2007.
Pitman, Emma Raymond. 1882? Mission Life in Greece and Palestine. London, Paris, New York: Cassell, Petter, Gilpin & Co.
Ramachandra, Vinoth. 2002. The Recovery of Mission: Beyond the Pluralist Paradigm. Wipf & Stock Publishers.
Register, Ray. 2000. Back to Jerusalem: Church Planting Movements in the Holy Land. Enumclaw, Washington: Winepress Publishing.
_____. 1979. Dialogue and Interfaith Witness with Muslims: A Guide and Sample Ministry in the USA, Revised Ed. Ephrata, Pennsylvania: Multi-Language Media.
Robeck Jr., Cecil M. ‘Mission and the Issue of Proselytism’ in IBMR 20:1, Jan 1996.
Royer, Chris. 2006. ‘An Apology for Greater Anglican Involvement in Turkey.’ Ambridge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, unpublished.
Sahas, Daniel J. ‘Ritual of Conversion from Islam to the Byzantine Church’ in Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. 36:1, 1991.
Samuel, Paul Bender. ‘Initial Reflections on Holistic Ministry in an Islamic Context’ in St Francis Magazine Vol 3:2, Sep 2007.
Sanneh, Lamin. ‘Muhammad, Prophet of Islam, and Jesus Christ, Image of God: A Personal Testimony’ in IBMR Vol. 8:4.
_____. Whose Religion is Christianity? The Gospel beyond the West. Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans.
Schineller, Peter, S.J. ‘Inculturation: A Difficult and Delicate Task’ in IBMR Vol. 20:3.
Schmemann, Alexander. 1963, 1973. For the life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy. Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
_____. 1961. ‘The Missionary Imperative in the Orthodox Tradition’ in The Theology of the Christian Mission, ed. Anderson, Gerald. New York, London, Toronto: McGraw-Hill.
Simson, Wolfgang. 1999. Houses that Change the World: The Return of the House Churches. Waynesboro, Georgia: Authentic Media.
Stacey, Vivienne. ‘Anglicans in the Household of Islam’ in SFM, Vol. 3:4, March 2008.
Stowe, David M. ‘Modernization and Resistance: Theological Implications for Mission’ in IBMR, Vol 12:4, October 1988.
Teague, David P. ‘Athanasius’ On the Incarnation and Mission Work Today’ in St Francis Magazine Vol. III:3, Dec 2007.
_____. ‘Speaking of Christ’s Divinity within Muslim Cultures’ in St Francis Magazine Vol 3:1, June 2007.
Tee, Iskandar. ‘Sidenotes on Insiders’ in St Francis Magazine Vol 3:3, Dec 2007.
Teeter, David. ‘Dynamic Equivalent Conversions for Tentative Muslim Believers’ in Missiology: An International Review, Vol. 18:3, July 1990.
Travis, John. ‘Messsianic Muslim Followers of Isa: A Closer Look at C5 Believers and Congregations’ in IJFM, Vol. 17:1, Spring 2000.
Vorgrimler, Herbert. 1992. Sacramental Theology, 3rd Edition. Trans. by Linda Maloney. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press.
Walls, Andrew F. 1996. The Christian Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis.
_____. ‘Old Athens and New Jerusalem: Some Signposts for Christian Scholarship in the Early History of Mission Studies’ in IBMR, Vol. 21:4, Oct 1997.
Weil, Louis. 1983. Sacraments & Liturgy: The Outward Signs. Oxford, New York: Basil Blackwell.
Weiss, Bernard G. 1998, Paperback 2006. The Spirit of Islamic Law. Athens and London: The University of Georgia Press.
Weston, Paul. ‘Lesslie Newbigin: A Postmodern Missiologist?’ in Mission Studies, Vol. 21:2, 2004.
Whiteman, Darrell L. ‘Contextualization: The Theory, the Gap, the Challenge’ in IBMR Vol. 21:1, Jan 1997.
Winter, Ralph. 1999. ‘The Kingdom Strikes Back’ in Perspective on the World Christian Movement, 3rd Edition, ed. Winter, Ralph and Steven C. Hawthorne. Pasadena: William Carey Library.
_____. 1999. ‘The Two Structures of God’s Redemptive Misssion’ in Perspective on the World Christian Movement, 3rd Edition, ed. Winter, Ralph and Steven C. Hawthorne. Pasadena: William Carey Library.
Woodberry, J. Dudley. ‘Terrorism, Islam, and Mission: Reflections of a Guest in Muslim Lands’ in IBMR Vol. 26:1, January 2002.
Wright, Lawrence. 2006. The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. Knopf.
Ye’or, Bat. 1996. The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude: Seventh-Twentieth Century. Farleigh Dickinson University Press.
Yergin, Daniel. 1993. The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power. Free Press.
Yohannan, K.P. 2003. Revolution in World Missions. Carrrollton, Texas: GFA Books.
Zwemer, Samuel M. 1902. Raymund Lull: First Missionary to the Moslems. New York, London: Funk & Wagnalls Company.
Bibliography for Islam and Christianity
by Abu Daoud
Abd al-Masiih. ‘ALLAH? The God of Islam and the God of Christianity?’ in St Francis Magazine Vol 2:4, March 2007.
Arab World Ministeries (AWM) ‘Contextualization of Ministry among Muslims: A Statement on the Appropriate Limits’ in St Francis Magazine Vol 3:1, June 2007.
Armstrong, Karen. 2002. Islam: A Short History. Modern Library Chronicles.
Arthur, J. Bryson. 2001. The Real Church: The GodMan Legacy. Nairobi: Uzima Press.
Bailey, Betty Jane; J. Martin Bailey. 2003. Who are the Christians in the Middle East? Grand Rapids; Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans.
Bettenson, Henry, ed. 1967. Documents of the Christian Church, Second Edition. London, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Caner, Emir Fethi and H. Edward Pruitt. 2006. The Costly Call, Book 2. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel.
Chauvet, Louis-Marie. 1995. Symbol and Sacrament: A Sacramental Reinterpretation of Christian Existence. Translated by Patrick Madigan, Madelaine Beaumont. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press.
Chesterton, G. K. 1920. The New Jerusalem. Pub UNK.
Coote, Robert T. ‘Finger on the Pulse: Fifty Years of Missionary Research’ in IBMR, Vol. 24:3.
Cragg, Kenneth. 1991. The Arab Christian: A History in the Middle East. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press.
_____. 2000. The Call of the Minaret, Third Edition. Oxford: One World Press.
Crombie, Kelvin. 2006. A Jewish Bishop in Jerusalem: The life story of Michael Solomon Alexander. Jerusalem: Nicolayson’s Ltd.
Dalrymple, William. 1998. From the Holy Mountain: A Journey among the Christians of the Middle East. London: Flamingo.
Donaldson, Stuart A. 1909. Church Life and Thought in North Africa A.D. 200. Cambridge: University Press.
Dutch, Bernard. ‘Should Muslims become “Christians”?’ in IJFM, Vol. 17:1, Spring 2000.
Evans, Edward. ‘Discipling and Training for Muslim background Believers, Part 1: A Growing Need’ in St Francis Magazine Vol 3:2 , Sep 2007.
Farah, Rafiq A. 2002. In Troubled Waters: A History of the Anglican Church in Jerusalem 1841-1998. Leicester, UK: Christians Aware.
Farah, Warrick. 2005. Mapping People Groups in Yemen for Informed Church Planting: A Research Project. Unpublished Manuscript.
Foster, John. 1956. Beginning From Jerusalem: Christian Expansion through Seventeen Centuries. London: United Society for Christian Literature.
Francisco, Adam S. ‘Luther, Lutheranism, and the Challenge of Islam’ in Concordia Theological Quarterly, Vol. 71:3/4, July/Oct 2007.
Fromkin, David. 1989. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. New York: Henry Holt & Co.
Garrison, David. ND. Church Planting Movements. Richmond, Virginia: International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.
_____. 1990. The Nonresidential Missionary: A new strategy and the people it serves. Birmingham, Alabama: MARC & New Hope.
Goldsmith, Martin. ‘Immanuel—Imanu-Allah: The Name of the Creator Deity and the Name of God’ in St Francis Magazine Vol 3:3, Dec 2007.
Gray, John. 2003. Al Qaeda and what it means to be modern. Chatham, UK: Faber and Faber.
Gunton, Colin E. 1997. The Promise of Trinitarian Theology. London, New York: T&T Clark.
Gustafson, K. and Common Ground Consultants, Inc. 2007. An Insider View. Unk: Common Ground Consultants, Inc.
Hallaq, Wael B. 1997. A History of Islamic Legal Theories: An introduction to Sunni usul al-fiqh. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Harper, Susan Billington. ‘Ironies of Indigenization’ in IBMR Vol. 19:1,
Hart, David Bentley. 2004. The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth. Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans.
Hogg, W. Richey. ‘Vatican II’s Ad Gentes: A Twenty-Year Retrospective’ in IBMR Vol. 9:4, Oct 1985.
Horner, Norman A. ‘Christianity in North Africa Today’ in Occassional Bulletin of Missionary Research Vol 4:2, Apr 1980.
Huband, Mark. 1999. Warriors of the Prophet: The Struggle for Islam. Oxford: Westview Press.
Huntington, Samuel P. 1998. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon & Schuster.
Jameson, Richard and Nick Scalevish. ‘First-Century Jews and Twentieth-Century Muslims’ in IJFM, Vol. 17:1, Spring 2000.
Jenkins, Philip. 2002. The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenner, Henry. ‘Mozarabic Rite’ in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X. 1911. Censor Lafort, Remy. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
John Paul II. 1990. Redemptoris Missio: On the Permanent Validity of the Church’s Missionary Mandate. Hunter Publishing.
Karsh, Efraim. 2006. Islamic Imperialism: A History. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
Kerr, David A. ‘Christian Mission and Islamic Studies: Beyond Antithesis’ in IBMR, Vol. 26:1, Jan 2002.
Khalil, Mohammad Hassan and Mucahit Bilici. ‘Conversion out of Islam: A Study of Conversion Narratives of Former Muslims’ in The Muslim World, Vol. 97, Jan. 2007.
Klauser, Theodor. 1979. A Short History of the Western Liturgy: An account and some reflections, 2nd Edition. Trans. by John Halliburton. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Lahham, Maroun. ‘Eastern Christianity: Development across the two millennia’ Translator unknown, in St Francis Magazine Vol 2:4, March 2007.
Lewis, Bernard. 2003. The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror. New York: Modern Library.
Lewis, Christopher. ‘It’s Primetime in Iran’ in Christianity Today, Sep. 2008.
_____. ‘Looking for Home’ in Christianity Today, Sep. 2008.
Livingstone, Greg. 1993. Planting Churches in Muslim Cities: A Team Approach. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.
Mansour, Atallah. 2004. Narrow Gate Churches: The Christian Presence in the Holy Land under Muslim and Jewish Rule. Pasadena: Hope Publishing.
Masri, Fouad. 2006. Is the Injeel Corrrupted? My Search for the Truth about the New Testament. Indianapolis: Crescent Project.
Massey, Joshua. ‘God’s Amazing Diversity in Drawing Muslims to Christ’ in IJFM, Vol. 17:1, Spring 2000.
Metz, Johann B. 1993. ‘The “One World”: A Challenge to Western Christianity’ in Christ and Context: The Confrontation between Gospel and Culture ed. by Regan, Hilary D. and Alan J. Torance. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Miller, William McElwee. 1969. Ten Muslims Meet Christ. Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans.
Newbigin, Lesslie. 2003. Signs amid the Rubble: The Purposes of God in Human History. Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans.
_____. 1995. The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission. Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans.
Nikides, Bill. ‘Evaluating “Insider Movements”: C5 (Messianic Muslims)’ in St Francis Magazine Vol 1:4, March 2006.
_____. ‘The Church at the Crossroads: A Global Perspective’ in St Francis Magazine Vol II:4, March 2007.
Pardo Pastor, Jordi. ‘Ramon Lull y el Ars Conuertendi: Antropología, Apologética, Diálogo y Hermenéutica’ in Estudios Eclesiásticos, Vol. 80, No. 312, 2005.
Paul VI. 1976. Evangelii Nuntiandi: On Evangelization in the Modern World. Pauline Books & Media.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. 1978. The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300). Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
Peters, Barry. ‘Christological Monotheism—a Practical Methodology’ in St Francis Magazine Vol 3:3, Dec 2007.
Pitman, Emma Raymond. 1882? Mission Life in Greece and Palestine. London, Paris, New York: Cassell, Petter, Gilpin & Co.
Ramachandra, Vinoth. 2002. The Recovery of Mission: Beyond the Pluralist Paradigm. Wipf & Stock Publishers.
Register, Ray. 2000. Back to Jerusalem: Church Planting Movements in the Holy Land. Enumclaw, Washington: Winepress Publishing.
_____. 1979. Dialogue and Interfaith Witness with Muslims: A Guide and Sample Ministry in the USA, Revised Ed. Ephrata, Pennsylvania: Multi-Language Media.
Robeck Jr., Cecil M. ‘Mission and the Issue of Proselytism’ in IBMR 20:1, Jan 1996.
Royer, Chris. 2006. ‘An Apology for Greater Anglican Involvement in Turkey.’ Ambridge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, unpublished.
Sahas, Daniel J. ‘Ritual of Conversion from Islam to the Byzantine Church’ in Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. 36:1, 1991.
Samuel, Paul Bender. ‘Initial Reflections on Holistic Ministry in an Islamic Context’ in St Francis Magazine Vol 3:2, Sep 2007.
Sanneh, Lamin. ‘Muhammad, Prophet of Islam, and Jesus Christ, Image of God: A Personal Testimony’ in IBMR Vol. 8:4.
_____. Whose Religion is Christianity? The Gospel beyond the West. Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans.
Schineller, Peter, S.J. ‘Inculturation: A Difficult and Delicate Task’ in IBMR Vol. 20:3.
Schmemann, Alexander. 1963, 1973. For the life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy. Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
_____. 1961. ‘The Missionary Imperative in the Orthodox Tradition’ in The Theology of the Christian Mission, ed. Anderson, Gerald. New York, London, Toronto: McGraw-Hill.
Simson, Wolfgang. 1999. Houses that Change the World: The Return of the House Churches. Waynesboro, Georgia: Authentic Media.
Stacey, Vivienne. ‘Anglicans in the Household of Islam’ in SFM, Vol. 3:4, March 2008.
Stowe, David M. ‘Modernization and Resistance: Theological Implications for Mission’ in IBMR, Vol 12:4, October 1988.
Teague, David P. ‘Athanasius’ On the Incarnation and Mission Work Today’ in St Francis Magazine Vol. III:3, Dec 2007.
_____. ‘Speaking of Christ’s Divinity within Muslim Cultures’ in St Francis Magazine Vol 3:1, June 2007.
Tee, Iskandar. ‘Sidenotes on Insiders’ in St Francis Magazine Vol 3:3, Dec 2007.
Teeter, David. ‘Dynamic Equivalent Conversions for Tentative Muslim Believers’ in Missiology: An International Review, Vol. 18:3, July 1990.
Travis, John. ‘Messsianic Muslim Followers of Isa: A Closer Look at C5 Believers and Congregations’ in IJFM, Vol. 17:1, Spring 2000.
Vorgrimler, Herbert. 1992. Sacramental Theology, 3rd Edition. Trans. by Linda Maloney. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press.
Walls, Andrew F. 1996. The Christian Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis.
_____. ‘Old Athens and New Jerusalem: Some Signposts for Christian Scholarship in the Early History of Mission Studies’ in IBMR, Vol. 21:4, Oct 1997.
Weil, Louis. 1983. Sacraments & Liturgy: The Outward Signs. Oxford, New York: Basil Blackwell.
Weiss, Bernard G. 1998, Paperback 2006. The Spirit of Islamic Law. Athens and London: The University of Georgia Press.
Weston, Paul. ‘Lesslie Newbigin: A Postmodern Missiologist?’ in Mission Studies, Vol. 21:2, 2004.
Whiteman, Darrell L. ‘Contextualization: The Theory, the Gap, the Challenge’ in IBMR Vol. 21:1, Jan 1997.
Winter, Ralph. 1999. ‘The Kingdom Strikes Back’ in Perspective on the World Christian Movement, 3rd Edition, ed. Winter, Ralph and Steven C. Hawthorne. Pasadena: William Carey Library.
_____. 1999. ‘The Two Structures of God’s Redemptive Misssion’ in Perspective on the World Christian Movement, 3rd Edition, ed. Winter, Ralph and Steven C. Hawthorne. Pasadena: William Carey Library.
Woodberry, J. Dudley. ‘Terrorism, Islam, and Mission: Reflections of a Guest in Muslim Lands’ in IBMR Vol. 26:1, January 2002.
Wright, Lawrence. 2006. The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. Knopf.
Ye’or, Bat. 1996. The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude: Seventh-Twentieth Century. Farleigh Dickinson University Press.
Yergin, Daniel. 1993. The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power. Free Press.
Yohannan, K.P. 2003. Revolution in World Missions. Carrrollton, Texas: GFA Books.
Zwemer, Samuel M. 1902. Raymund Lull: First Missionary to the Moslems. New York, London: Funk & Wagnalls Company.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Part XVI: Islam and Mormonism
Islam and Mormonism
by C. Fletcher, ed. Abu Daoud
In studying world religions, I have noticed several similarities between Mormonism and Islam. Sure, there are significant differences as well (Monotheistic Islam vs. Polytheistic Mormonism for example), and I would not suggest that they are theologically compatible, but the foundings of both religions are surprisingly similar and worth noting.
Here are 12 of the parallels that have been noted (this list is by no means exhaustive):
1. Both claimed that the original meaning of the teachings of Jesus and those who preceded him had either been forgotten or corrupted.
2. Both prophets are reported to have come from humble beginnings with no formal education and were barely literate.
3. Holy Books: Both prophets wrote a new holy book that was apparently inspired by God, and both claimed that their holy book was the most correct and perfect book on earth. Also, they both claimed that their holy books were based upon a record stored in heaven. Both religions claim that their Holy Books have been preserved and are accurate to what was originally recorded by their prophets.
4. Both prophets claimed to have had visions and to have been visited by angels. For Muhammad it was the angel Gabriel, and for Smith it was the angel Moroni. Both visions revealed many new teachings that contradict the Bible.
5. Both believed that no true religion existed on Earth and they were there to restore God’s truth. Islam claims that Adam and Abraham were truly Muslim and that it is restoring 'the true faith of Abraham'. Mormons claim to have restored 'the true faith/church' that was on the earth during and after the time of Jesus, before the supposed "Great Apostasy".
6. Both prophets were practicing polygamists and advocated polygamy (and condemn polyandry) by supposed revelation from God. Additionally, both men married very young girls.
7. Both profited greatly (financially) from their followers by commanding their money.
8. Both men received “convenient” revelations just in time to satisfy their own desires. For example, Muhammad got a revelation that he himself was allowed to marry 8 wives instead of the usual 4 in Islam, and Joseph Smith got a similar revelation (revealed in Doctrine and Covenants section 132) that he was not only permitted to marry multiple wives, but that it was required for salvation and was an everlasting covenant. This revelation came just as he was going to be “caught” with other women he was having affairs with. Additionally, D&C 132 specifically mentions his wife Emma by name and warns her to death should she be unfaithful to Joseph. (Most scholars [even Mormon scholars like Todd Compton] estimate that Joseph Smith had 33 wives before he was killed. Surely he would have had many more had he lived longer.
9. Both left no clear successor for their faith - leading both religions to splinter after the death of their prophets. In each religion there are splinter groups with each group claiming to be the true successor or true continuation of the faith.
10. Both Islam and Mormonism have those who follow the "original doctrine" of the founding leaders and like these founding leaders, are violent polygamists, and have revelations justifying their evil actions.
11. Both prophets and religions deny the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the eternality of Jesus, as well as Jesus being God in the flesh
12. Both men were murderers. For Muhammad, there is no question about this. Most Mormons teach and believe that Joseph Smith was martyred, but this is not true. It is historically verifiable that he shot and killed two men during the shootout that ultimately took his life. The Mormon view is that he was “led like a lamb to slaughter” and was killed as a martyr. Not so. It was a gunfight, that he and his brother lost, but not before taking some lives of their own.
Here are some scriptures to reflect on in light of the points above. While these scriptures may come across as abrasive... remember, it's not my view or anyone else's, this is the Bible.
Galatians 1:6-9 "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed."
2 Cor 11: 12-15 "And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve."
by C. Fletcher, ed. Abu Daoud
In studying world religions, I have noticed several similarities between Mormonism and Islam. Sure, there are significant differences as well (Monotheistic Islam vs. Polytheistic Mormonism for example), and I would not suggest that they are theologically compatible, but the foundings of both religions are surprisingly similar and worth noting.
Here are 12 of the parallels that have been noted (this list is by no means exhaustive):
1. Both claimed that the original meaning of the teachings of Jesus and those who preceded him had either been forgotten or corrupted.
2. Both prophets are reported to have come from humble beginnings with no formal education and were barely literate.
3. Holy Books: Both prophets wrote a new holy book that was apparently inspired by God, and both claimed that their holy book was the most correct and perfect book on earth. Also, they both claimed that their holy books were based upon a record stored in heaven. Both religions claim that their Holy Books have been preserved and are accurate to what was originally recorded by their prophets.
4. Both prophets claimed to have had visions and to have been visited by angels. For Muhammad it was the angel Gabriel, and for Smith it was the angel Moroni. Both visions revealed many new teachings that contradict the Bible.
5. Both believed that no true religion existed on Earth and they were there to restore God’s truth. Islam claims that Adam and Abraham were truly Muslim and that it is restoring 'the true faith of Abraham'. Mormons claim to have restored 'the true faith/church' that was on the earth during and after the time of Jesus, before the supposed "Great Apostasy".
6. Both prophets were practicing polygamists and advocated polygamy (and condemn polyandry) by supposed revelation from God. Additionally, both men married very young girls.
7. Both profited greatly (financially) from their followers by commanding their money.
8. Both men received “convenient” revelations just in time to satisfy their own desires. For example, Muhammad got a revelation that he himself was allowed to marry 8 wives instead of the usual 4 in Islam, and Joseph Smith got a similar revelation (revealed in Doctrine and Covenants section 132) that he was not only permitted to marry multiple wives, but that it was required for salvation and was an everlasting covenant. This revelation came just as he was going to be “caught” with other women he was having affairs with. Additionally, D&C 132 specifically mentions his wife Emma by name and warns her to death should she be unfaithful to Joseph. (Most scholars [even Mormon scholars like Todd Compton] estimate that Joseph Smith had 33 wives before he was killed. Surely he would have had many more had he lived longer.
9. Both left no clear successor for their faith - leading both religions to splinter after the death of their prophets. In each religion there are splinter groups with each group claiming to be the true successor or true continuation of the faith.
10. Both Islam and Mormonism have those who follow the "original doctrine" of the founding leaders and like these founding leaders, are violent polygamists, and have revelations justifying their evil actions.
11. Both prophets and religions deny the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the eternality of Jesus, as well as Jesus being God in the flesh
12. Both men were murderers. For Muhammad, there is no question about this. Most Mormons teach and believe that Joseph Smith was martyred, but this is not true. It is historically verifiable that he shot and killed two men during the shootout that ultimately took his life. The Mormon view is that he was “led like a lamb to slaughter” and was killed as a martyr. Not so. It was a gunfight, that he and his brother lost, but not before taking some lives of their own.
Here are some scriptures to reflect on in light of the points above. While these scriptures may come across as abrasive... remember, it's not my view or anyone else's, this is the Bible.
Galatians 1:6-9 "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed."
2 Cor 11: 12-15 "And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve."
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Witness to Muslims and 1 John
Witness to Muslims and 1 John
by Abu Daoud
I went out today with, let us say, an openness to talk with folks about the religious topics. But instead of taking a copy of the Gospel in Islamic Arabic which I have used on several occasions (I didn't have one handy), I picked up a small pocket Bible. It is the Jesuit translation, which I particularly like because it uses real (classical) Arabic but not the rarefied, esoteric stuff found in the main translation--the Van Dyke.
Also, it is not designed to be an Islamic translation, but I suspect it is modeled to offer something aesthetically pleasing and useful for liturgy. (What else would you expect from Jesuits? And now that I think of it what could be more Quranic?)
I also though about the people I was visiting, how we had discussed several parables of the Kingdom before and I was thinking, maybe we should mix it up a little and try something else. I recalled the advice from an Anglican priest from when I was new in the Middle East. He had recommended 1 John, so I thought, ok, let's do it.
So we did, three of us sat down and read 1 John 1 and here are some of my impressions:
Plus:
-the language of light is something Muslims know
-darkness as an image of sin/evil makes sense to Muslims
-the phrase "word of God" is also in the Quran, of course
-the author starts out by insisting that he is talking about what he has seen and touched, lending the text authenticity
-the repetition and flow is very nice, reminiscent of the earlier surahs in the Quran which are quite poetic, of course 1 Jn is pretty concise and clear, which makes it different than the Quran.
Minus:
-it is not one the THE GOSPELS, that is, not from Jesus, which means it's not by Islamic standards "injiil." But I explained John was one of the followers of Jesus, like the rightly guided caliphs. He said, ok so this is like hadiith. Well, sort of, I said.
-there is a clear statement about "Son of God" in there, so if you haven't talked about that already, or if you don't want to tackle that issue, then stick to the parables of the Kingdom. But sooner or later you gotta take yer medicine.
Anyway, some reflections. Please keep me in your prayers, lots of stuff is happening, some of it not so good, some of it good but difficult.
by Abu Daoud
I went out today with, let us say, an openness to talk with folks about the religious topics. But instead of taking a copy of the Gospel in Islamic Arabic which I have used on several occasions (I didn't have one handy), I picked up a small pocket Bible. It is the Jesuit translation, which I particularly like because it uses real (classical) Arabic but not the rarefied, esoteric stuff found in the main translation--the Van Dyke.
Also, it is not designed to be an Islamic translation, but I suspect it is modeled to offer something aesthetically pleasing and useful for liturgy. (What else would you expect from Jesuits? And now that I think of it what could be more Quranic?)
I also though about the people I was visiting, how we had discussed several parables of the Kingdom before and I was thinking, maybe we should mix it up a little and try something else. I recalled the advice from an Anglican priest from when I was new in the Middle East. He had recommended 1 John, so I thought, ok, let's do it.
So we did, three of us sat down and read 1 John 1 and here are some of my impressions:
Plus:
-the language of light is something Muslims know
-darkness as an image of sin/evil makes sense to Muslims
-the phrase "word of God" is also in the Quran, of course
-the author starts out by insisting that he is talking about what he has seen and touched, lending the text authenticity
-the repetition and flow is very nice, reminiscent of the earlier surahs in the Quran which are quite poetic, of course 1 Jn is pretty concise and clear, which makes it different than the Quran.
Minus:
-it is not one the THE GOSPELS, that is, not from Jesus, which means it's not by Islamic standards "injiil." But I explained John was one of the followers of Jesus, like the rightly guided caliphs. He said, ok so this is like hadiith. Well, sort of, I said.
-there is a clear statement about "Son of God" in there, so if you haven't talked about that already, or if you don't want to tackle that issue, then stick to the parables of the Kingdom. But sooner or later you gotta take yer medicine.
Anyway, some reflections. Please keep me in your prayers, lots of stuff is happening, some of it not so good, some of it good but difficult.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Part XV: Islam and the Sword of the Religion
One of the most heated discussions I have had with a Muslim was about the topic of the sword. "The problem is that you believe in the sword of the religion, but we (Christians) know that there is no sword of the religion! Jesus said that he who lives by the sword will die by the sword."
The sword of the religion is a prominent theme in Islamic thinking. In fact one might name his son saif-iddiin--Arabic for Sword of the Religion. Indeed the name of the son of Libya's ruler: Saif al-Islam Kadafi: Sword of Islam Kadafi. It is there on the flag of Saudi Arabia beneath the Islamic confession that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his prophet. There are also some hadiiths, or sayings from the life of Muhammad, on the sword:
"Paradise is in the shade of swords," embodies well the philosophy that paradise is a reward to be won by the use of the sword. (Sahih Al Bukhari, Jihad, 22:73)
Or this one, also from Al Bukhari, "Allah marvels at those who enter paradise in chains." While not explicitly using the word sword, one finds here the conviction that those who are enslaved by Islamic conquests and so receive Islam are have somehow been graced by Allah.
Being very fond of his swords Muhammad named them: Dhu al Faqar, Al Battar (which originally belonged to King David, according to one tradition), Al Ma'thur, Al Rasub, and so on (he owned and named nine swords).
Muhammad as a political leader was at times very diplomatic and humble. But at times we see a robust and some might say ruthless exercise of violence for the sake of maintaining and furthering his own domain and authority. While the non-Muslim may see this sanctification of violence and slaughter as an abuse of religion, we must remember that for the orthodox Muslim the domain and will of Muhammad are synonymous with the domain and will of God. Marking out a boundary between the will and action of Muhammad and the will and action of God is something that Islamic scholarship has been neither desirous nor able to do. For this reason several ex-Muslims call their former religion "the worship of Muhammad."
But whatever the reason may be, there is no recognition of a difference between Muhammad's will and Allah's will in Islam. Because of this the vigorous use of violence--the sword of the religion--in Islam emerges as an element of worship, gaining a sort of sacramental aura. In Christianity a sacrament is "an outward sign of an inward grace." And in Islam the presence and use of the sword of the religion, especially when it leads to the successful imposition of the will of its wielder, must be construed a sure sign of the presence and favor of Allah.
To allow Muslims to enter and reproduce in a country, as we especially see in Europe, while expecting them to lay down the sword of the religion, is to fundamentally misunderstand Islam. The sword of the religion is an essential part of Islam because it was essential to the success of Muhammad, himself the ideal man, the perfect man. There is no presupposition that violence is bad in Islam. VIolence when used for the cause of Allah is in fact a great good as it leads to the triumph of Islam and the shari'a. To expect a sudden wave of un-Islamic pacifism to envelope Muslims in non-Muslim countries is the worse sort of hypocrisy.
The strategic use of violence is and always will be near the heart of Islam, and conservative Islamic scholars today recognize few limitations in the use of said violence against non-Muslims. In fact Muslims who do not hold to their devout, strict (and accurate I would say) construal of Islamic practice make themselves kuffaar--unbelievers--thus surrendering their right to live. In other words, many people we would call Muslim are valid targets for the sword of the religion. This is how, for example, Al Qaeda can declare a Jihad on the leader of Pakistan, General Musharraf. Moreover his supporters, by supporting a leader who is not validly Muslim, forfeit their right to live as well. The name of this practice of Islamic excommunication is called takfiir, and is becoming more and more common.
All of this means that silly mantra that "Muslims condemn the murder of innocent civilians," is almost a meaningless statement. It must be followed by questions like, "Who precisely are innocent?" and "Who precisely are civilians?" There are scholars who would say that NO American tax payer is innocent, for he supports the military in its oppression of Muslims by the simple act of paying taxes. Other scholars have explained that since all Israeli Jews will eventually be part of the Israeli military, Israeli Jewish children can not be classified as civilians, rather they are legitimate military targets for the sword of the religion.
Words are slippery things. One man's jihad is another man's terrorism. One man's holy warrior (mujaahid) is another man's criminal. One man's moderate Muslim is another man's apostate who must be killed. As a gesture of trust and dialogue it is important to always ask for clarification of meanings when discussing these things.
Why? Among most Christians to say "the sword of Christianity" would be met with distaste and conjure recollections of a few isolated historical events. But for Muslims the sword of the religion is the sovereignty of Allah working out the slow but sure submission of the world.
The sword of the religion is a prominent theme in Islamic thinking. In fact one might name his son saif-iddiin--Arabic for Sword of the Religion. Indeed the name of the son of Libya's ruler: Saif al-Islam Kadafi: Sword of Islam Kadafi. It is there on the flag of Saudi Arabia beneath the Islamic confession that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his prophet. There are also some hadiiths, or sayings from the life of Muhammad, on the sword:
"Paradise is in the shade of swords," embodies well the philosophy that paradise is a reward to be won by the use of the sword. (Sahih Al Bukhari, Jihad, 22:73)
Or this one, also from Al Bukhari, "Allah marvels at those who enter paradise in chains." While not explicitly using the word sword, one finds here the conviction that those who are enslaved by Islamic conquests and so receive Islam are have somehow been graced by Allah.
Being very fond of his swords Muhammad named them: Dhu al Faqar, Al Battar (which originally belonged to King David, according to one tradition), Al Ma'thur, Al Rasub, and so on (he owned and named nine swords).
Muhammad as a political leader was at times very diplomatic and humble. But at times we see a robust and some might say ruthless exercise of violence for the sake of maintaining and furthering his own domain and authority. While the non-Muslim may see this sanctification of violence and slaughter as an abuse of religion, we must remember that for the orthodox Muslim the domain and will of Muhammad are synonymous with the domain and will of God. Marking out a boundary between the will and action of Muhammad and the will and action of God is something that Islamic scholarship has been neither desirous nor able to do. For this reason several ex-Muslims call their former religion "the worship of Muhammad."
But whatever the reason may be, there is no recognition of a difference between Muhammad's will and Allah's will in Islam. Because of this the vigorous use of violence--the sword of the religion--in Islam emerges as an element of worship, gaining a sort of sacramental aura. In Christianity a sacrament is "an outward sign of an inward grace." And in Islam the presence and use of the sword of the religion, especially when it leads to the successful imposition of the will of its wielder, must be construed a sure sign of the presence and favor of Allah.
To allow Muslims to enter and reproduce in a country, as we especially see in Europe, while expecting them to lay down the sword of the religion, is to fundamentally misunderstand Islam. The sword of the religion is an essential part of Islam because it was essential to the success of Muhammad, himself the ideal man, the perfect man. There is no presupposition that violence is bad in Islam. VIolence when used for the cause of Allah is in fact a great good as it leads to the triumph of Islam and the shari'a. To expect a sudden wave of un-Islamic pacifism to envelope Muslims in non-Muslim countries is the worse sort of hypocrisy.
The strategic use of violence is and always will be near the heart of Islam, and conservative Islamic scholars today recognize few limitations in the use of said violence against non-Muslims. In fact Muslims who do not hold to their devout, strict (and accurate I would say) construal of Islamic practice make themselves kuffaar--unbelievers--thus surrendering their right to live. In other words, many people we would call Muslim are valid targets for the sword of the religion. This is how, for example, Al Qaeda can declare a Jihad on the leader of Pakistan, General Musharraf. Moreover his supporters, by supporting a leader who is not validly Muslim, forfeit their right to live as well. The name of this practice of Islamic excommunication is called takfiir, and is becoming more and more common.
All of this means that silly mantra that "Muslims condemn the murder of innocent civilians," is almost a meaningless statement. It must be followed by questions like, "Who precisely are innocent?" and "Who precisely are civilians?" There are scholars who would say that NO American tax payer is innocent, for he supports the military in its oppression of Muslims by the simple act of paying taxes. Other scholars have explained that since all Israeli Jews will eventually be part of the Israeli military, Israeli Jewish children can not be classified as civilians, rather they are legitimate military targets for the sword of the religion.
Words are slippery things. One man's jihad is another man's terrorism. One man's holy warrior (mujaahid) is another man's criminal. One man's moderate Muslim is another man's apostate who must be killed. As a gesture of trust and dialogue it is important to always ask for clarification of meanings when discussing these things.
Why? Among most Christians to say "the sword of Christianity" would be met with distaste and conjure recollections of a few isolated historical events. But for Muslims the sword of the religion is the sovereignty of Allah working out the slow but sure submission of the world.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Part XIV: Islam and Tahriif
The Arabic word referring to this corruption is "tahriif", and the teaching is that the Christian (and thus Jewish) Scriptures are profoundly flawed and are thus not reliable indications of God's will, commandments, prophets, or of the history of his people. (Note: I am particularly occupied with questions regarding Jesus' teaching--the injiil--in this article.)
Tahriif is a very wide-spread belief among Muslims today, though it is not universal. It places Muslims in a very powerful position regarding the Bible because for anything they agree with already they can say, "This is from Allah, do you see that we believe in the Prophets? Why do you not accept Allah's final prophet (Muhammad) as well?" But if they are confronted with anything that challenges Islam or the Qur'an, they can say, "Clearly the text has been corrupted, for Jesus would never have said such a thing and this goes against the Qur'an."
So how can a Christian react to this? There are several paths that come to mind, all of which have been used with some degree of success in the past, I will outline three of them for you and indicate which one I generally prefer:
a) Historical Weakness of Tahriif: The traditional doctrine of tahriif tells the following story: Prophets like Jesus and Moses received genuine verbatim revelations from God like Muhammad. But perfidious Jews and Christians later corrupted these texts to suit their purposes. Now this story is found nowhere in the Qur'an, which most Muslims don't know, but it is based on certain hadiith and most Muslims simply don't know the Qur'an very well. This story is problematic from an historical point of view and prompts raises more questions than it answers:
• The New Testament took form on three different continents (Asia, Africa, and Europe), how were Christians able to collect all the valid versions of the injiil (the book Jesus received from God) given that it was recorded and spread over such a broad area?
• Languages: Sections of the NT had been translated from Greek into Latin, Syriac , Hebrew, and probably Amharic and Coptic by the end of the 2nd Century. Did the tahriif of the injiil take place before or after the translations? If before, then it must have been in the 1st Century, but there were still people alive then who had known and listened to Jesus personally, which means that there would be some record of people objecting to this corruption of the injiil. If the tahriif occurred after the translations, then we would have to believe that EVERY COPY of the true injiil which was present in three continents in (at least) half a dozen languages was destroyed.
b) Motive of Corrupters: The Gospels as we have them today give a rather unflattering picture of the Apostles. They are often foolish, proud, and faithless. It is thus unlikely that they would have "corrupted" the injiil without revising the many events which make them look foolish and weak.
It is also unlikely that one would corrupt a text without removing all the promises of persecution and familial strife, and the advocacy of poverty--hardly the kinds of things you put in a religious message if you want it to be popular. Rather, one thinks that a religious message crafted to gain popularity would include the promise of riches, women, and power--promises we do find explicitly in the Qur'an.
Moreover all the Apostles minus John were martyred for their faith. If they had corrupted the injiil and knew it to be a false message, it is inconceivable that they would all die rather than denounce it's validity. Who then corrupted the injiil? People will not die for a message they know to be corrupted. By the end of the Apostolic era the texts of the four Gospels were too wide spread and and existed in too many languages for a unified and viable tahriif to be possible.
But historical reasoning and evidence will generally get you nowhere at all with most Muslims because in Islamic culture the entire discipline of history has largely been subsumed as a sort of devotional exercise to prove the Qur'an is correct. Trying to argue from historical evidence that the Qur'an is not true is like me trying to convince you from the hymnal that the Bible is false.
c) Corruption in your Heart: This is by far my preferred apologetic. I like this approach because in many ways it mirrors Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and the interiority of the Kingdom of God. Fasting is not about letting other people know you are fasting, it is about God knowing you are fasting, for example. Similarly, I start by explaining that tahriif is very real and it is a significant problem. We say that God knows the heart of all men, and that he is all powerful--no Muslim will disagree. Then I explain that when the Jew knows the Torah and its commands, and he disobeys it, he has corrupted the Torah in his heart. Likewise the Christian who knows the commands of the injiil and disobeys it has corrupted the injiil. And finally, the Muslim who knows the commands of the Qur'an and disobeys it, is it not true that he has corrupted the Qur'an? The answer, in my experience, is always yes. Muslims are very aware that most Muslims aren't very strict in their obedience.
In conclusion I usually ask, "Is Allah powerful or weak?" Powerful! "Is Allah wise or foolish?" Wise, the answer comes. "Yes my friend, and Allah is more powerful than the Jews and the Christians, and no one is capable of corrupting God's words to his prophets! If anyone says that his words corrupted IN THE TEXT of the Torah and Gospel, he is a man who believes that God is neither wise nor powerful. But you see that corruption is in our hearts."
This is not simply a play on words. It does accommodate the Muslim who already believes in tahriif. All you have done is to reformulate the doctrine of tahriif in a way that is very much based on Jesus' teaching. But this apologetic also gets to a very foundational weakness in the Islamic view of God. God is always connected with power in Islam--Allahu Akbar! God is the greatest. Yet the Islamic narrative proposes that Jesus was not crucified, for God would not let than happen to a prophet of his. Yet we are also told that the word God gave to this prophet was not preserved? To preserve the true injiil would have been easy for God. Why did he not do it? Why did he allow 600 years of humanity to operate under the assumption that this corrupted injiil was in fact valid and accurate? And given that even from the beginning Christianity was riven with heresies and fanatics, how is that not even one copy of the real injiil was preserved by a dissenter.
All good questions. But they are not to be used to as a weapon to assault a Muslim. Whether the tone is light and conversational, or adversarial--which is sometimes necessary--we must always speak the truth in love. It is a sign of God's love to us that his true Word is in fact his Son who came to live with us, hunger with us, eat with us, cry with us, and suffer for us. His Word is not some book that one can close and place a shelf, but one who is alive and whom death could not hold down. Because of his life we have hope for eternal life: "And this is everlasting life, to know you the one true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."
Tahriif is a very wide-spread belief among Muslims today, though it is not universal. It places Muslims in a very powerful position regarding the Bible because for anything they agree with already they can say, "This is from Allah, do you see that we believe in the Prophets? Why do you not accept Allah's final prophet (Muhammad) as well?" But if they are confronted with anything that challenges Islam or the Qur'an, they can say, "Clearly the text has been corrupted, for Jesus would never have said such a thing and this goes against the Qur'an."
So how can a Christian react to this? There are several paths that come to mind, all of which have been used with some degree of success in the past, I will outline three of them for you and indicate which one I generally prefer:
a) Historical Weakness of Tahriif: The traditional doctrine of tahriif tells the following story: Prophets like Jesus and Moses received genuine verbatim revelations from God like Muhammad. But perfidious Jews and Christians later corrupted these texts to suit their purposes. Now this story is found nowhere in the Qur'an, which most Muslims don't know, but it is based on certain hadiith and most Muslims simply don't know the Qur'an very well. This story is problematic from an historical point of view and prompts raises more questions than it answers:
• The New Testament took form on three different continents (Asia, Africa, and Europe), how were Christians able to collect all the valid versions of the injiil (the book Jesus received from God) given that it was recorded and spread over such a broad area?
• Languages: Sections of the NT had been translated from Greek into Latin, Syriac , Hebrew, and probably Amharic and Coptic by the end of the 2nd Century. Did the tahriif of the injiil take place before or after the translations? If before, then it must have been in the 1st Century, but there were still people alive then who had known and listened to Jesus personally, which means that there would be some record of people objecting to this corruption of the injiil. If the tahriif occurred after the translations, then we would have to believe that EVERY COPY of the true injiil which was present in three continents in (at least) half a dozen languages was destroyed.
b) Motive of Corrupters: The Gospels as we have them today give a rather unflattering picture of the Apostles. They are often foolish, proud, and faithless. It is thus unlikely that they would have "corrupted" the injiil without revising the many events which make them look foolish and weak.
It is also unlikely that one would corrupt a text without removing all the promises of persecution and familial strife, and the advocacy of poverty--hardly the kinds of things you put in a religious message if you want it to be popular. Rather, one thinks that a religious message crafted to gain popularity would include the promise of riches, women, and power--promises we do find explicitly in the Qur'an.
Moreover all the Apostles minus John were martyred for their faith. If they had corrupted the injiil and knew it to be a false message, it is inconceivable that they would all die rather than denounce it's validity. Who then corrupted the injiil? People will not die for a message they know to be corrupted. By the end of the Apostolic era the texts of the four Gospels were too wide spread and and existed in too many languages for a unified and viable tahriif to be possible.
But historical reasoning and evidence will generally get you nowhere at all with most Muslims because in Islamic culture the entire discipline of history has largely been subsumed as a sort of devotional exercise to prove the Qur'an is correct. Trying to argue from historical evidence that the Qur'an is not true is like me trying to convince you from the hymnal that the Bible is false.
c) Corruption in your Heart: This is by far my preferred apologetic. I like this approach because in many ways it mirrors Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and the interiority of the Kingdom of God. Fasting is not about letting other people know you are fasting, it is about God knowing you are fasting, for example. Similarly, I start by explaining that tahriif is very real and it is a significant problem. We say that God knows the heart of all men, and that he is all powerful--no Muslim will disagree. Then I explain that when the Jew knows the Torah and its commands, and he disobeys it, he has corrupted the Torah in his heart. Likewise the Christian who knows the commands of the injiil and disobeys it has corrupted the injiil. And finally, the Muslim who knows the commands of the Qur'an and disobeys it, is it not true that he has corrupted the Qur'an? The answer, in my experience, is always yes. Muslims are very aware that most Muslims aren't very strict in their obedience.
In conclusion I usually ask, "Is Allah powerful or weak?" Powerful! "Is Allah wise or foolish?" Wise, the answer comes. "Yes my friend, and Allah is more powerful than the Jews and the Christians, and no one is capable of corrupting God's words to his prophets! If anyone says that his words corrupted IN THE TEXT of the Torah and Gospel, he is a man who believes that God is neither wise nor powerful. But you see that corruption is in our hearts."
This is not simply a play on words. It does accommodate the Muslim who already believes in tahriif. All you have done is to reformulate the doctrine of tahriif in a way that is very much based on Jesus' teaching. But this apologetic also gets to a very foundational weakness in the Islamic view of God. God is always connected with power in Islam--Allahu Akbar! God is the greatest. Yet the Islamic narrative proposes that Jesus was not crucified, for God would not let than happen to a prophet of his. Yet we are also told that the word God gave to this prophet was not preserved? To preserve the true injiil would have been easy for God. Why did he not do it? Why did he allow 600 years of humanity to operate under the assumption that this corrupted injiil was in fact valid and accurate? And given that even from the beginning Christianity was riven with heresies and fanatics, how is that not even one copy of the real injiil was preserved by a dissenter.
All good questions. But they are not to be used to as a weapon to assault a Muslim. Whether the tone is light and conversational, or adversarial--which is sometimes necessary--we must always speak the truth in love. It is a sign of God's love to us that his true Word is in fact his Son who came to live with us, hunger with us, eat with us, cry with us, and suffer for us. His Word is not some book that one can close and place a shelf, but one who is alive and whom death could not hold down. Because of his life we have hope for eternal life: "And this is everlasting life, to know you the one true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
